New photo up on The Johnny Gosch Foundation site

[compared2what?]

are you talking to me?

Because if so, I'm willing to take the rebuke, but can't learn from it without understanding it. Which I don't.

ON EDIT: I'm asking Et whether I am the noob he wants to shut the fuck up, and if so, why, in case that isn't clear.

[rbeck]

Saint Joseph's Home for Children looks like it is the king of the hill in the boy's-home/troubled-child treatment in the Twin Cities area.

I see an allegation of sexual harassment there by an adult woman against her supervisor, in a case she didn't win. And a settlement by a diocese in Vermont to someone who had been abused at a Saint Joseph's orphanage there, although the latter is really barely of any relevance to the outfit in Minnesota.

Anyway. Was Saint Joe's the orphanage DeCamp was in?

No thats not it. Ok guys I found it sorry it took so long John was with a group called "The Crosier Fathers" it was a seminary with an attached monastery\ orphanage. the group of Crosiers john was with is located in Onamia, MN it has since been closed in 1989. Remember john was there in the 50s early 60s and never reported his abuse to anyone people didnt do things like that back then against the RC church.his abusers are probably dead by now. if you want any more information let me know

[dickdecent]

Whilst I understand the spirit of what shef was saying about emotional charge, a lively board is the idea after all, I think I have to agree with Comp.

Not that there's been much giggling... let's face it, we're talking about stack's inability to post without VERY personal attacks, chiefly directed toward me.

stack, the reasons I won't be drawn into a personal flame war with you [or anyone else] are many and obvious, -to most grown-ups. At best it is a tedious waste of time, a precious commodity indeed. Moreover it detracts and distracts from the thread itself.

Mate, I don't know why you took such offence from what I thought was pretty mild criticism of your original post, considering it's content, but I really think you might have some anger management problems.

As you now seem to be not just missing the point, but careering headlong away from it like a rabid rape victim, I am going to try this one last time. I shall then leave your incumbent offensive reply in the air, and you will have definitely WON... you will have BEATEN ME with your intellect, and your higher understanding... not to mention your impressive vocabulary. Yah boo sucks to me! Then we can get back to where we should all be.

Selecting pieces of a post(s) and then using them to make a point, the meaning of which was never implicit, explicit, inferred, or even actually there in the original post(s) is how we got into this in the first place. Selective editing is an old spook trick...
It's not big, and it's not clever. (I have to say that to my 6 year old son now and then)

Even if what you chose of sunny's quote, had meant what, for some reason you chose to portray it as meaning. [Infact, in context, the meaning was OPPOSITE as he rightly complained immediately!!] I would in no way be defending those statements! Anymore than I would defend a statement of yours! It is their right to make those statements, and make them without the spectre of an ill tempered, and personally offensive diatribe as their greeting, that I am and have been defending.

You seem to be so angry that no-one has noticed how angry you are about posters daring to speak things that have crossed their minds, or daring to speak how they feel in the moment, in mulling over this very emotional case, that you are now inventing objects of your anger that were never really there!
It is the function of this thread and this board, and I think Jeff's blog also, to facilitate an environment where people can dare to speak things that have crossed their minds, or dare to speak how they feel in the moment, in mulling over any case.

If you think something is in bad taste, fine! Go ahead and say so, that's your right. Sharing ideas, thoughts and feelings though, can surely be done without resorting to such childish, pathetic and above all nonsensical name calling. You don't know me, you don't know anything of my life or my experiences. Your expletives and conceits merely serve to reflect your own character, and I'm sure you're a better person than that!

(BTW... Limeys!!? Limeys ffs! this ain't the 18th century ... besides I think you Yanks better hold on to all the 'Limey' and 'Canuck' friends you can!)

In fact my own feeble yet trusty R.I. senses that you may not have been lucky enough to have had a trouble free childhood yourself, if that were anywhere near the reason you are so utterly incensed, then I would finally understand your position. When nerves are struck we all must respond.

For the record I do theorise that NG is totally innocent of the abduction itself, (although her then spouse I'm NOT so sure of) but I'm afraid that TG's appearance only means one thing to me, and it's not good. Uncle Ted turns up, then a bit later on photos start to materialize. Hence a lot of speculation here and elsewhere that the current state/face of the Gosch site is... just wrong, and further speculation on the veracity of the recent photo. This led to some members speculating upon the innocence of NG herself... WE MUST BE ALLOWED THE OXYGEN OF SPECULATION WITHOUT HINDERANCE. This, where genuine, comes above all else IMO.
Looking at history from the board, and recent posts, I'd say I'm a bit more in the DeCamp camp than say Jeff, and I'd call the Bonacci evidence and trial, the 'holy grail' and real kernel of how this all functioned, making JG (and so NG) simply the next victims....

...but I don't actually believe any of it... it's just my best guess right now.

As pope Bob would say, once you believe in something your mind is truly closed.

Stack... b4 U go crazy on me again..
I just wanna make it clear... the above comment about your childhood is totally sincere, with absolutely no other connotation judgment or offence meant....

and go get laid or something will ya?

[chiggerbit]

~sigh~

[shefner]

OK, so compared2what has chastized me for being "lol" and "giggly," while she posts photos of crazy cats? Your "serious" nature is simply overwhelming!

And then to dickdecent, who half-heartedly agreed with the above, saying that stack is fleeing from the point like a "rabid rape victim?" Ooohhh....bad use of words here, dick. I've known stack a while and he is highly charged on every front. Yes, but there is no question he takes this case to heart. I think we all must or why else would we be here?

I take this case to heart and only try to lighten things up when the atmosphere gets too heavy to bear.....
Now me and my spanked fanny are going to sit and sulk and I dare ya to play schoolmarm with me again!

[Searcher08]

Now me and my spanked fanny are going to sit and sulk and I dare ya to play schoolmarm with me again!

Actually, I think it is really healthy to have a bit of lunacy in this thread, because it is SO heavy and SO dark. I feel I really want to do something around this but it hasn't yet formed into a "What". In fact this area is one thing that probably needs a humor injection - just as ambulance drivers develop a humor to cope with what they encounter

[rbeck]

If people have a problem with Gunderson's "satanic-panic" vibe, then why are you interested in Franklin/Gosch?

Because Gunderson, his ilk and their "vibe" don't own Franklin/Gosch.

I hate the term, but they are this topic's "gatekeepers," and their off-putting vibes, misdirections and false assumptions have kept it from gaining any sort of credible traction.

Jeff, what do you see as being their misdirections and false assumptions?

Briefly and incompletely:

"100% Confirmation Gannon/Guckert Is Johnny Gosch"

"So here's my question: why is Ted Gunderson, self-styled enemy of Satanic Ritual Abuse, a longtime friend and partner of Robert Booth Nichols, a reputed veteran of MK-ULTRA and student of Nazi occultism? (Interestingly, when then-FBI agent Gunderson had run a background check of Nichols, he reportedly found him to be 'squeaky clean.')

The far right Christian militia/"Patriot" movement milieu, which I believe serves as a false opposition to further exercise control upon survivors.

The scapegoating of alternative religions, sects and lifestyles, when the perpetrators hide themselves in plain sight in the conservative, "family values" mainstream.

The botching of every case Gunderson touches.

boy i coundnt disagree more with you there Jeff when you see anything written by Barbara Hartwell, Cheri Seymore,Stew Webb in regards to or about Ted my advice is to take it with a grain of salt, a big grain. these 3 people are hell bent on destroying Teds character fabricating lie after lie about the man it makes you wonder who theyre working for. as a point of fact Ted caught Cheri red handed getting payoffs from the FBI. i can go into the ugly mess with old Stew and Barb but i could write a book on those two.
I have seen so many people online who just look at the surface of Ted what they can learn through google and all they see is a somewhat bumbling ex law enforcement guy who screws everything up. his online persona kind of reminds me of inspector Clouseau from the pink panther movies. but thats not the real Ted. I know the guy real well,hes very accomplished ,interesting and well informed, 2 of my close friends worked with him on crimes unrelated to satanic cults or johnny gosch and they speak highly of his expertise and kindness.Keep in mind the man is 80 years old ! Ted is a very old school investigator (not like the modernday google jockeys we have here)he admits he rarely uses the internet ,doesnt have email he tried it once back in 2002 his old email address is theodoregunderson@yahoo.com but gave up after getting too much spam,someone created his website for him and he doesnt edit it at all.people like to think hes working for the otherside spreading disinfo but thats not the case you really have to understand who he is where hes been to understand why he associates himself with the people he does you mentioned Dr. Nichols for one. botching everything he touches? not true from my and alot of people i knows experience.these satanic cults are very very real ill take you to where they operate if you want they need to be eradicated even if they are "alternative lifestyles"

[rbeck]

here is what is posted on www.johnnygosch.com recently who is she talking about?

March 13, 2008

Some Message Boards Spreading Lot of Incorrect Information

There seems to be someone on a message board who is spreading a lot of incorrect information and saying they are direct quotes from me. I have never talked to this person so I do need to post this information to more or less stop this activity...

Noreen

[shefner]

Thank you, Searcher, for that delightful imagery of my recent scolding by c2w....you are a dear!

Also, to rbeck, thank you for your comments concerning TG. I think his association with some "edgy" types make more than a few posters here feel uncomfortable. But if you look into his background, there is nothing there but solidity. I do think he has seen more than we can ever believe, and perhaps, that in combination with his advancing age make him seem "out there" sometimes.

Anyone who knows you, rbeck, would readily acquiesce to your judgement. "You da man!" [/i]

[Jeff]

here is what is posted on www.johnnygosch.com recently who is she talking about?

See pages 5 to 7 of this thread.

[brainpanhandler]

I brought myself to take another look at Noreen's site, something I do with a bit of trepidation. I had to see this new photo in context.

I can understand the reasoning behind the photos being so visible on the site, but FOR SURE their purpose would be better served by putting another layer between them and visitors.

The photo is indisputably doctored. I got no response before, but I'll say it again, isn't it possible that someone with good intentions heightened the contrast on caribou for the purpose of clarifying the text and thereby increasing the chance of generating a lead? Did I miss someone throwing that idea out or shooting it down? If not, isn't that the simplest explanation?

NG writes,
It is a laundry bag from a "camp".

This suggests that if the photo was enhanced for clarity it was not done by NG. In fact it almost has to also mean that NG did not look at it after it was enhanced, but before she wrote the above because it so clearly says caribou. Else why put camp in quotation marks? Why not just write, "It is a laundry bag from what appears to be camp caribou"?

The laundry bag was almost certainly screenprinted. I know a little something about screenprinting. If the ink was not cured properly or evenly it could be the case that some of the ink would wear off faster. Or it could be that the way the bag was habitually hauled around abraded the ink off caribou faster than camp. This would explain why someone would want to enhance the photo. The U in caribou has been incompletely "enhanced". This perhaps suggests that the person who enhanced the photo was adhering to a guideline to only enhance what was actually there and not fill in any areas that were totally blank.

NG could clear this up with a few words.

If it's a false lead then doesn't NG have to be in on it? If it's a deliberate enhancement known to NG then why does she write camp in quotation marks? If it's a deliberate enhancement unknown to NG then how is that possible given the level of savvy at analyzing photos she must have presumably acquired over the years? Maybe the photo was originally posted without the enhancement, was later enhanced, but the text was never updated?

Maybe enhancement isn’t the simplest explanation.

[Jeff]

these satanic cults are very very real ill take you to where they operate if you want

I'll pass, thanks. I think I've been clear enough in my writing that I have no doubt they do exist. What I'm saying additionally is that occult criminals with community standing often appear to have the public life of conservative, family values Christians, scapegoating harmless and non-criminal religious non-conformists.

[shefner]

these satanic cults are very very real ill take you to where they operate if you want

I'll pass, thanks. I think I've been clear enough in my writing that I have no doubt they do exist. What I'm saying additionally is that occult criminals with community standing often appear to have the public life of conservative, family values Christians, scapegoating harmless and non-criminal religious non-conformists.

Jeff, must you break my heart? Please agree that not all conservative, family valued Christians are the bad guys....

It seems right now that politicians have the market cornered on sexual misbehavior (some of it "criminal"). And yes, some of them pride themselves on their wonderful "conservative, family values." Unfortunately, they taint the whole crowd with their hypocritical acts.

[shefner]

brainpanhandler, you make some significant points concerning this laundry bag. I thought it was strange that NG only said "camp," when the bag obviously says "caribo(u)"--and you're right, the "u" is almost invisible.

Are you saying you think the pic was altered or enhanced after it was received?

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Please agree that not all conservative, family valued Christians are the bad guys....

No, just the ones that go around molesting other people's kids.